This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.

English to Korean: U.S. Policy in Asia— Perspectives for the FutureGeneral field: Social SciencesDetailed field: Government / Politics

Source text - EnglishThis document summarizes the proceedings and findings of a conference on U.S. policy in Asia titled Pivot to Asia? U.S. Policy in Asia Under the Trump Administration, which was held at the RAND Corporation in January 2017. The conference’s objectives were to examine the arenas of U.S.–Asia engagement, develop an understanding of the outcomes of past interaction, and make the case for the terms of future engagement. The conference covered climate change, trade and investment, national security, human rights, and macroeconomic issues.
During the conference, individuals presented their papers, and a round of moderated feedback and discussion took place. As a result of the conference proceedings, papers were revised, and the final versions are included here as Chapters One through Nine. This section incorporates the critiques and comments made during the conference. The conference papers included in this document represent the views of their respective authors and were not subject to RAND’s research and quality assurance processes.
The U.S. commitment to an active role in Asia has continued under the Trump administration. It has been evident, even from the early days, that the administration has chosen not to inherit the all-encompassing nature of Barack Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” unchanged. In some cases—such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the 2015 United Nations (UN) Paris Agreement on climate change at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) (which is global but involves Asian, and particularly Chinese, interests)—the United States has withdrawn and, indeed, seems to have put economic and climate change issues on the back burner. In other cases, such as on human rights issues, the United States may participate but is unlikely to retain the lead role. However, in some cases that the Obama administration de-emphasized, such as the Belt and Road Initiative, the Trump administration seems to be willing to consider the terms of engagement. Some regions that were priorities for Obama, such as South Asia, have lost salience. The Trump administration has devoted considerable administrative capacity to such national security issues as the situation in the Korean peninsula, although there have been limited changes on the ground.
These changes make it hard to describe the Trump administration’s Asia policy in simple terms. However, it is equally hard to imagine that there will be no American engagement in each of these areas. For example, the United States has historically played a leading and active role in coordinating its macroeconomic policies with those of other countries. As part of this effort, consultations with leading Asian countries, notably China and Japan, have been ongoing for several years. If the United States chooses to “go it alone” in macroeconomic policymaking, the outcomes are likely to be significantly negative for all countries, including the United States itself.

Hi!!!I am an English-Korean translator and a native Korean speaker.I have worked as an English-Korean translator for 9 years. I have a lots of experience of transcribing, translating, and captioning audio and videos from English to Korean (vice-versa) in broadcasting companies.I will be available more than 60 hours per week and able to start your project as soon as possible.Thank you for your consideration.Best Regards.